Federal judge rules every illegal migrant in US must register with federal government
The Department of Homeland Security announced in February that all illegal migrants will be required to register with the government, and that those who do not could face fines or prosecution.
Register for what? Register for a ride home? Register for free room and board?
Criminals and illegal immigrants are already exempt from gun control laws (Supreme Court Haynes ruled criminals don't have to register guns because it would be 5th Amendment self incrimination, more recently Illinois ruled illegal immigrants are exempted from their gun ownership card law because those are only issued to legal state residents so illegals have more rights than citizens there, etc)
Certain states will definitely use rulings like those to bypass voter registration laws.
The problem is none of them were register because they're all in fear that the minute they do they will be deported so it's really a stupid law nobody's going to register in this country
"Hi my name is Jose Giminez and I am supposed to register."
"Hello Mr. Giminez, registration is in that bus in the parking lot."
"Okay, gracias"
OR ---- they will be illegal
Let's see...
People can illegally enter the country and the penalty is that they have to register to let us know they broke the law. Penalty? None.
Does this mean if I get caught speeding I can register that I sped and they leave me the fuck alone? Or I can register that I decided not to pay my taxes and they'll leave me alone?
Why do people who are invading our damned country get more rights and better treatment than tax-paying, law-abiding citizens? This is bullshit.
Um... just to play 'devil's advocate' here, how is this Federal judge any different from all the bad Federal judges trying to stymie Trump's agenda? Does this ruling have any more clout than the idiot judges' recent rulings? I think the intent of this ruling is based on common sense, but how does this Federal judge have more standing than the others who have ruled so irresponsibly?
This is a federal judge doing their Constitutionally defined job - interpret law as written. Overturning the executive branch's constitutionally defined job is not.
The difference is law, and specifically the Constitution's well defined Separation Of Powers.
Executive orders are how the Executive Branch manages itself. Executive Branch doesn't make laws (and according to West Virginia VS EPA, executive agencies need to make sure they are enacting Congressionally passed laws, executive agencies can't make up new laws at random based on their opinions they must follow existing written law. This is important for agencies like the ATF where the agency has a history of writing "opinion letters" and enforcing them as if they were law to the point people are in prison over opinions that had never been codified into law. Executive Branch is Constitutionally given full authority to hire and fire its own employees, and Congress writes laws the Executive Branch is supposed to enforce.
Trump issuing executive orders commanding executive agencies enforce existing law as written is his Constitutionally defined job. If Congress wants to change those laws, it can. If judges want to stop a law from existing, or stop the executive branch from doing its constitutionally defined job, they can't.
TLDR this judge is Constitutionally correct in doing his duty, whereas judges trying to usurp Executive branch power are not. This doesn't mean the ruling will stand - it can be appealed to higher courts who can reinterpret the ruling and this federal judge shouldn't be able to make a ruling that applies nationwide as they should only have authority over their represented district. But it does mean this judge is doing his legal duty as a judge interpreting existing law, unlike judges who are illegally doing unconstitutional things to try and overstep Judicial authority.
Excellent argument, anon.
u/Toblathe gives a very good answer about the intent of this District Judge vs. other judges, but I don't think your question was answered.
District Courts are below Circuit Courts, which are below the Supreme Court. What authority does a District Court Judge have to decide whether or not the Executive Branch is "permitted" to pursue a coirse of action?
There are over 670 District Judges in the US. Any one of them could rule in favor of or against the Executive Branch and suddenly that's binding for the entire country?
If anyone can explain this to me (I'm sure there's probably something I'm not understanding), I would greatly appreciate your efforts!
You nailed it - there was never any intention of 670 judges across the nation to unilaterally strip the President of power any time their political party disagrees. if the Democrat party thought of this sooner they would have done it to Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation as well (though the Supreme Court did rule slavery was to be enforced in all states because at that time it was still fully written with no caveats multiple times throughout the original Constitution and slaves weren't redefined to "prisoners" until the 13th Amendment was ratified.)
This is a clearly defined Separation of Powers issue, and the Supreme Court has already ruled on this indirectly (W. VA VS EPA) when they clarified that Executive Agencies can't make up new rules and laws but have full authority to enforce those already passed by Congress.
Also it should be noted that "Slippery Slope" arguments are not a fallacy in US law and in fact are a serious legal consideration judges must make for every decision because US law is Precedence based (not that you said anything of the sort, but this goes to your asking for clarification). A random low level judge setting precedence that courts have more power over Executive function than the entire Executive Branch sets extraordinarily bad precedent because there is no legal limitation or power specifying what they did as an explicitly defined District Judge authority either - meaning precedent was set for tens of thousands of judges across every minor township to be able to do the same thing. It was an incredibly stupid, uneducated, and lawless attempt to usurp Executive power without any consideration or understanding of how the law actually works.
Well yes, that was the substance of my original question. There was a longish discussion about judges in general, but you're right, it really didn't answer the question: If judges cannot issue restraints on a President, how does this particular case differ? ...even though it seems to be pro-Trump?
This just in, according to a new ruling, everyone in the united state has to obey the law. WOW
It’s a nice try…but kind of like registering to “ come back” for your hearing in 3 years…
How would they get illegals to do this, especially now when some have gone into hiding due to deportation fears.
I'm going to look at this from a higher altitude. Yes, to the average person this sounds silly. I am thinking that somehow this strengthens the movement to catch and deport wetbacks. If someone is illegal and additionally now in violation of an obligation to register, do these 2 crimes now put together:
strengthen case for deportation?
possibly somehow give state and local authorities more power to catch wetbacks?
That reminds me of an old joke my dad told me when I was young. He said that crime would be much better handled if all criminals were forced to register. It'd be easy to catch and administer generic punishments for generic crimes. He said the catch is if you don't register the punishment is death by hanging.
IT'S GOOD THAT ONE JUDGE CAN MAKE A RULING THAT IMPACTS THE ENTIRE NATION
This is HILARIOUS.
First - the judge was appointed by... DJT in 2017. Second - he serves on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Third - well, this deserves a paragraph.
The left has been judge-shopping and getting rogue judges to issue these decrees against Trump and claiming that even though it is a district judge the rulings apply to the whole USA. We all know that is BS - the judges don't have jurisdiction - but they are doing it anyway.
Now the good guys did it. That will force the leftists to fight it with the same arguments our side has been using. It shows the hypocrisy of the left. It will also end up at SCOTUS. This one will get a lot of press, and will hopefully piss SCOTUS off enough to once and for all smack these judges down to where they belong - and rule that they do NOT have jurisdiction to effect anyone or anything outside of their districts (at the district level).
Whoever did this is brilliant. If the judge thought of this on his own, he won't be a district judge for long. He is moving up.
Some liberal Circuit Judge will rule this law to be illegal/unconstitutional. Ho hum, another day in America's screwed up legal system.
Hmmm. They can add this to list of offenses and get illegals who have been here for years.
Illegal aliens suddenly act legally.
Deport them or fuck off
..................
How about "Every illegal migrant [sic] must GET OUT?"
Implement the law that every murderer needs to register as such.
Expect they’d actually do it.
Define: Naive.
Reconcile.
Upon getting caught, they should be registered into a national database by ICE, with fingerprints on file, then deported.